Managing corporate controversies: the role of environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings
We explain why ESG integration is not just about managing downside controversy risks but the insight it can bring to future growth.
High profile corporate controversies are regularly used to highlight the value of ESG analysis.
Volkswagen’s emissions scandal, Enron’s fraud and BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill each appear to provide tantalising examples of the significant losses that could potentially have been avoided through a better understanding of company practices.
Our analysis suggests investors hoping conventional ESG ratings will help to identify these problems before they break are likely to be disappointed (Figure.1):
ESG ratings have shown no clear predictive value
Better-rated companies appear slightly more likely to experience controversies than worse-rated companies. This suggests that tick-box indicators of company sustainability are ineffective measures of controversy risk.
ESG ratings have reacted to controversies
On average, ratings have fallen by a full rating notch in the few months after a controversy becomes public. Most ratings include corporate controversies in their calculations, and while this mitigates the reputational risk of having high ratings for challenged companies, it disguises their limited predictive power.
Past controversies are a bad guide to future controversies
We find no meaningful relationship between the number of controversies a company has faced and the likelihood it suffers a future controversy. Ratings that rely heavily on past controversies therefore risk undermining their own effectiveness.
The value of ESG integration
This does not mean third party ESG ratings have no value. Instead it underlines the importance of understanding what they are and how they should be used. To us, effective ESG integration means examining a company’s ESG performance and incorporating that analysis into investment decisions.
Moreover, effective ESG integration is not just about preventing large downside controversy risks. Rather, the key value of examining business model sustainability lies with the insight it can bring to future growth.
Any security(s) mentioned above is for illustrative purpose only, not a recommendation to invest or divest.
This document is intended to be for information purposes only and it is not intended as promotional material in any respect. The views and opinions contained herein are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other Schroders communications, strategies or funds. The material is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for investment advice or recommendation. Opinions stated are matters of judgment, which may change. Information herein is believed to be reliable, but Schroder Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited does not warrant its completeness or accuracy.
Investment involves risks. Past performance and any forecasts are not necessarily a guide to future or likely performance. You should remember that the value of investments can go down as well as up and is not guaranteed. Exchange rate changes may cause the value of the overseas investments to rise or fall. For risks associated with investment in securities in emerging and less developed markets, please refer to the relevant offering document.
The information contained in this document is provided for information purpose only and does not constitute any solicitation and offering of investment products. Potential investors should be aware that such investments involve market risk and should be regarded as long-term investments.
Derivatives carry a high degree of risk and should only be considered by sophisticated investors.
This material, including the website, has not been reviewed by the SFC. Issued by Schroder Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited.